Just 10 per cent of Royal Society members are women. But more can be done to
change that, writes Jake Wallis Simons.

In his latest book, From Here To Infinity, Martin Rees – the Astronomer Royal and Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at Cambridge – argues that science and hi-tech manufacturing must do more to attract the next generation. "It's crucial that the brightest young people should perceive the UK as a place where cutting-edge science and engineering can be done," he says.

Yet something is missing: and that something is women. Lord Rees points out that only 10 per cent of members of the Royal Society, from which he recently stepped down as president, are female. "Obviously, we are handicapping ourselves on the world stage if we don't give opportunities to women," he says.

This is where For Women in Science comes in. This award, made by L'Oreal and Unesco every year since 1998, "recognises the achievements and contributions of exceptional female scientists" by offering a £15,000 grant to further their research, money that can be spent on anything from lab equipment to childcare. The latest winner will be announced this evening; among the eight finalists are Dr Antje Weisheimer, who is researching methods to predict extreme weather more accurately, and Dr Monika Gullerova, who is studying the sort of genetic mutation that leads to cancer.

Projects like this are helping to bring about change: Lord Rees says that 30 per cent of those receiving University Research Fellowships from the Royal Society are women. In 20 years, he says, this will be reflected in the higher echelons. "But more needs to be done," he says.

That sentiment is shared by Athene Donald, head of the L'Oreal-Unesco judges. "Too too many young women are discouraged – actively or passively – from pursuing their dream of a career in science," she says. "We need to confront the stereotypes."

Yet some argue that the problem is not cultural, but biological – that women are just not as well suited to science as men. Simon Baron-Cohen, Professor of Developmental Psycho-Pathology at the University of Cambridge, categorises men as "systematisers" because they are "hard-wired for understanding and building systems", whereas women, with their innate sensitivity to people and emotions, are "empathisers". As a result, he says, "some occupations are almost entirely male".

There is no denying that the male and female brains have distinct structures and compositions. But different doesn't mean better. As the cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker says, "Men are better at mentally rotating shapes; women are better at visual memory. Men are better at mathematical problem-solving; women are better at mathematical calculation."

According to Athene Donald, this difference in approach makes women's contribution to science all the more valuable: "Women can be more collaborative, for example, bringing a team together rather than solving things in a corner on their own."

The real obstacles for women in science, she says, include an inflexibility towards child-care arrangements, an overly competitive atmosphere and a lack of good role models.

Rosaleen Kaye, a physics teacher, says that the education system has a lot to answer for. "I've seen how boys can elbow girls out of the way in science classes," she says. "They take more risks with experiments, and tend to dominate as a way of showing off." Once, she gave a group of boys and girls the task of building a solar-powered vehicle. The boys took over the designing, and the girls were delegated to colouring-in. "The girls were just as clever," she says, "but they were taking a back seat. We need to instil in girls the strength to stand up for themselves."